631-1732-1-PB

8/11/2019 631-1732-1-PB

1/5

Advances in Computational Mathematics and its Applications (ACMA) 203

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2012, ISSN 2167-6356

Copyright World Science Publisher, United States

www.worldsciencepublisher.org

Simulation Comparison between HFSS, CST and WIPL-D for

Design of Dipole, Horn and Parabolic Reflector Antenna

1Fahad Shamshad Muhammad Amin

Department of Electrical Engineering Satellite Development and Research Centre

Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan Lahore, Pakistan

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract-- Antenna designs are becoming increasingly complex with recent advancement in the communication systems.

These days it is very important to sort out the software which is best suited to our required antenna design. Complex

antenna structures cannot be simulated without using these softwares, known as electromagnetic solvers. The important

criteria of simulations are accuracy of results, time and how electrically large structures can be simulated. In this paper threefamous electromagnetic solvers High Frequency Structure Simulator (HFSS), CST Microwave studio (Transient solver) and

Wires Plates and Dielectrics (WIPL-D) are compared for accuracy and simulation time with simulations of dipole, Horn and

parabolic reflector antenna. In the end pro and cons of these softwares are stated based on the simulation results.

Keywords-- HFSS; CST; WIPL-D; Dipole; Horn; Parabolic reflector

1. Introduction

Several real world electromagnetic problems are not

analytically solvable like scattering, radiation and

transmission of energy via waveguides because of

complexity of structures. Therefore use of computational

electromagnetic field (CEM) [1] is inevitable. It models the

interaction of electric and magnetic fields with physical

objects and their environment to find the numerical

approximation of Maxwells equations. Electromagnetic

solvers are result of advancement in this field. These are

specialized programs or softwares that solve the subset of

Maxwells equations [2] directly. Three different

electromagnetic solvers with different computationalelectromagnetic techniques are compared in this paper.

Each technique has its advantages and drawbacks, the

knowledge of which helps to get best result out of these

softwares.

Softwares that are compared here are

HFSS stands for high frequency structure

simulator and based on finite element method

(FEM). [3]

CST stands for computer simulation technology

and based on finite domain time difference method

(FDTD).(Only transient solver for CST will beconsidered here).[4]

WIPL-D stands for wires plates and dielectrics and

based on method of moments (MOM).[5]

Central to all computational electromagnetic methods is the

idea of discretizing (first calculated in small area by

gridding and then combine these to produce overall result)

some unknown electromagnetic property which is

Electric field for FEM

Electric and magnetic field for FDTD

Surface current for MOM

All simulations in this paper are performed on HP xw 8400workstation Intel(R), Xenon(R) CPU, [email protected] GHz

and 3GB of RAM. [6][7][8]

2. Dipole antenna comparison in HFSS and

WIPL-D

Dipole has been simulated in HFFS and WIPL-D.

Results and time taken by these solvers to simulate the
http://www.worldsciencepublisher.org/http://www.worldsciencepublisher.org/http://www.worldsciencepublisher.org/

8/11/2019 631-1732-1-PB

2/5

Fahad Shamshad & Muhammad Amin, ACMA, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-207, 2012 204

structure has been obtained from respective simulation

software. Gain and impedance plot of dipole in WIPL-D

and HFSS are given in Figure 1 . Parameters of dipole are

Frequency = 300 MHz

Transmission line length = /4

Dipole length = /2

Radius of wire used = 0.1mm

Frequency sweep = 80 - 440 MHz

Step size = 20 MHz

In HFSS dipole antenna is simulated inside the rectangular

shape Radiation boundary. All parameters in both softwares

are set to default except those who has been mentioned.

Figure 1(a). Dipole model in HFSS Figure 1(d). Dipole model in WIPL-D

Figure 1(b). 3D gain plot of dipole in HFSS Figure 1(e). 3D gain plot of dipole in WIPL-D

Figure 1(c). Impedance plot of dipole in HFSS Figure 1(f). Impedance plot of dipole on WIL-D

2.1 Observation HFSS is not suitable for wire like structures. Its

gain value 2.77 dB is not close to the theoretical value .

8/11/2019 631-1732-1-PB

3/5


Moreover HFSS took 26 minutes to complete this

simulation. The gain as calculated by the WIPL-D is 2.28

dB which is very close to theoretical value and almost the

same as gain calculated by the Necwin plus software for the

same structure. For this simulation WIPL-D took 31.20

seconds. Thus for wire like structures WIPL-D is about 50

times faster than HFSS.

3.1 DISH ANTENNA COMPARISON IN

CST AND WIPL-D

Dish is not suitable to design in HFFS due to its large

electrical length. So Dish antenna has been designed in

CST software with circular horn as a feed and results are

measured . Then same dish antenna has been exported to

WIPL-D Pro CAD software to compare the time taken by

both software's to run the simulation. Simulated results are

shown in Figure 2.

.

Dish parameters are

Diameter = 600mm

Focal point = 300mm

Thickness = 0.01mm

Material = Perfect Electric Conductor

Taper angle = 53.1o

Horn parameters are

Upper radius of cone = 30.88 mm

Lower radius of cone = 15 mm

Waveguide length = 31.25 mm

Waveguide radius = 15 mm

Total length of horn = 43.25 mm

Edge taper = 11 dB


Thickness of horn sheet = 0.001 mm

Excited by = Wave port (In CST)

Dipole (In WIPL-D)

Figure 2(a). Dish antenna model in CST Figure 2(c). Dish antenna model in CST

Fig.2(d) 3D gain plot of dish in CST Fig.2(d) 3D gain plot of dish in CST

8/11/2019 631-1732-1-PB

4/5


Fig.2(e) 3D gain plot of dish in CST Fig.2(e) 3D gain plot of dish in WIPL-D

3.1. OBSERVATION

Above simulation was run in CST using transient

solver and default mesh properties. CST took 1 hour 36minutes to complete the above simulation while WIPL-D

took 9 min 35 sec for the same task. Thus WIPL-D is about

10 times faster than CST for dish antenna simulations.

Results are also very close to that of CST results. However

CST is more versatile giving us much more options as

compared to WIPL-D. For example CST give the phase

centre of Horn antenna used in this simulation while WIPL-

D have no such option. WIPL-D is best in terms of time and

wire-plate like structures (like dipole and helix) while

CST is more versatile and give us more options to see in

depth of our results.

4. Horn antenna comparison in HFSS and

CST

Horn antenna has been compared in HFSS and CST and

time taken by both the solvers to complete the above

simulation has been noted Figure 3.

Horn parameters are

Upper radius of cone = 30.88 mm

Lower radius of cone = 15 mm

Waveguide length = 31.25 mm

Waveguide radius = 15 mm

Total length of horn = 43.25 mm

Edge taper = 11 dB


Thickness of horn sheet = 0.1 mm

Excited by = waveport

Figure 3(a). Model of horn antenna in CST Figure 3(b). Model of horn antenna in HFSS

8/11/2019 631-1732-1-PB

5/5


Figure 3(c). 3D gain plot of horn in CST Figure 3(e). 3D gain plot of horn in HFSS

Figure 3(d). 2D gain plot of horn in CST Figure 3(f). 2D gain plot of horn in CST

4.1 Observation

CST took about 4 minutes to complete the above

simulation with default mesh properties while HFSS took

40 seconds for the same task. Results are almost same. So

HFSS is better for narrow band frequency problems as horn

is operated on a single frequency.

5. Conclusion

Each software has its strong and weak points which

one must know to get the best results out of these. After

these simulations we conclude that WIPL-D is best suitable

to electrically large structures like parabolic dish. CST

transient solver is suitable for wide band antenna

simulations and electrically large structures but take lot of

memory and time. HFSS is not suitable for electrically

large and wire like structures but best for narrow bands

problems.

References

[1] Elliot P , The applied computational electromagnetic society, Antenna

and propagation Magazine , IEEE, Volume 33, Issue 1, 3 rdAugust 2002,

pp..18-19.

[2] Mathew N.O.Sadiku , Elements of Electromagnetics, Edition 4, Oxford

University Press , Nov 2 , 2010.

[3]www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/

[4]www.cst.com/

[5]www.wipl-d.com/

[6] Abdul Basit, Zain-ul-Aabidin Lodhi, Farhan Zafar, Waqar Aziz,

Design Analysis of /4 Monopole VHF Ground Plane Antenna, ,

Advances in Electrical Engineering Systems (AEES), Vol.1, No. 3, 2012,pp. 146-151.

[7] Nabeel Arshad, Muhammad Ali Jamal, Dur E Tabish, Saqib Saleem,

Effect of Wireless Channel Parameters on Performance of Turbo Codes,

Advances in Electrical Engineering Systems (AEES), Vol.1, No. 3, 2012,

pp. 129-134.

[8] Fahad Shamshad, Usman Javed, Saqib Saleem, Qamar-ul-Islam,

Physical Layer Aspects of 3GPPs Long Term Evolution (LTE), Advances

in Computer Science and its Applications (ACSA),Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012, pp.287-2
http://www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/http://www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/http://www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/http://www.cst.com/http://www.cst.com/http://www.cst.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.wipl-d.com/http://www.cst.com/http://www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/

Documents

631-1732-1-PB